Did you support the Afghanistan Invasion?

[Must_B_Free]

I hear dems pundits sayt his all the time - Al Franken, Randi.

I don't know that that was the right war either, it was just convenient for the political needs. I think we just had to attack some muslims to save face after 911.

Afghanistan didn't attack us. The pilots were Saudis. I never really felt we got the proof that Powell promised. How do we know who organised the 911 plot? The few few tidbits of "evidence" seemed contrived. The miracle ID and the fat looking Osama on the "confession tape" I don;t know what he said - I dont; speak that language. I don't even know if it was Osama.

I don't care if they had women in burquas, that doesn't make war the answer.

Meanwhile, genocide goes on and we look the other way.

[noahmijo]

1. I didn't support bombing Afghanistan indiscrimantly BUT

Afghanistan is a major stronghold of Islamic terrorism (thank the Republicans for funding them there against the Soviets) and being that Afghanistan was Osama's backyard and there is strong evidence that Al-Queda was behind the attacks I wouldn't see yea bomb the whole thing to the ground, but definitely you know send in the special forces, let's get some intelligence going out there, if there's a terrorist camp in plain site turn it into ashes.

[Must_B_Free]

3. Why not just ignore them?

So they kill a few people, so what? Big deal. People die al the time. Think cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, highways, and natural disaster...

I think if we ignore them then they would have to face the reality that their terrorism doesn't affect anything and they would stop. reacting is exactly the wrong thing to do. It's exactly what they want.

Sometimes wisdom is not doing what your enemy is trying to force you to do.

[noahmijo]

7. If someone murdered your wife and children could you ignore them?

and just not bother to pursue justice?

No sorry but I could never be that much of a pacifist. Terrorists must be destroyed, captured or killed wherever they may be. The goal is to get the job done without taking innocents.

Ignoring the growing terrorist threat is exactly what got us into 9-11 in the first place.

Reacting with emotion is the wrong thing to do. Reacting smartly with both balls and brains is the right thing to do. Not reacting at all is just as dangerous as not reacting smartly.

[Must_B_Free]

11. We already have a justice system

What would I have personally to gain in trying to avenge? Seems like a waste of effort.

I'm from Amish country. I've heard of a drunk driver plowing into a buggy killing a family of five. The Amish don't sue, they forgive. The christian thing to do is to forgive. Ultimately you're going to have to get on with your life anyway.

And by the way, we didn';t get the 3000 Americans back, all we got was more americans killed.

[noahmijo]

14. It's not about avenging

It's about stopping them before they kill again. If a serial killer killed someone I love for example, I would want that person stopped so that they don't destroy another family.

And we got more Americans killed due to the president's slipshot methods in Afghanistan and largely because of his horrible plan to invade Iraq.

If we had a real president we wouldn't be hearing about dead Americans or countless civilians we'd be watching the trial of Osama right now, followed by his punishment which should be simply to release him......somewhere in the South Bronx with a sign on him that says "I hate Puerto Ricans"

[venus]

2. At the time I sure did

However now I think it was not the right thing to do. Hind-sight, flip-flop, whatever. But we really should have done things differently in Afghanistan; precision strikes a la Clinton perhaps. No need for the heavy-handed tactics. Why not attack Saudi Arabia? It would have been too serious and we were, hate to say it, chickenshit. Afghan was an easy target.

[Gore1FL]

4. It was done wrong, but I supported it being done right

We should have gone in after Al Qeada. If th eTaliban forces got in the way, we should have made them sorry they were in the way, and then refocused on Al Qeada.

INSTEAD we somehow became the arm arm of the Northern Alliance. Then the whole thing just got stupid.

[wuushew]

5. Its seems a strange response..given past terrorism

The Lockerbee bombing killed hundreds of innocents but the culprits took refuge in Libya. However we did not destroy the Libyan government. The only differences between those two incidents were the scale of the crime and the level of modernity of the countries.

I guess acts of terrorism have to reach a certain level of collective horridness which allows politicians to engage in actions of expedience.

[jdj]

8. Damn good point.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. No, because for all Laura Bush's pleas for the women in burqas

the Washington establishment and the Republicans in particular ignored feminists' complaints about the Taliban for six years, and even negotiated with the Taliban for rights to an oil pipeline.

Then, with the country occupied, the Bushies blew a golden opportunity to rehabilitate America's reputation when they then went and invaded Iraq. Imagine what $87 billion could have done to rebuild a desperate country like Afghanistan: roads, schools, health clinics, agricultural assistance, micro loans for entrepreneurs.

We would be getting applause instead of condemnation from the general public in Islamic countries.

Oh, and latest news reports are talking about the resurgence of the Taliban and how life outside Kabul is pretty much the same as before.

I was always suspicious about the Bushies' motives for invading Afghanistan, and I am angry that they have just shoved those long-suffering people aside in order to chase after oil riches in Iraq.

[TahitiNut]

9. No.

[Nashyra]

12. Yes

They should have done it right and should have finished it by getting Bin Laden even if they had to tell Pakistan to f off to get him.

[RapidCreek]

21. I'll second that.

Our attack of Afghanistan had little to do with 9/11. 9/11 simply offered a convenient rational for implementing our military as a mercenary force to secure business deals for US oil companies.

The article below sort of gives the background of my opinion on the matter. I highly recommend you all read it in its entirety.

Unocal and the Afghanistan pipeline

by Larry Chin
Online Journal 6 March 2002


Part One of a two-part series: Players on a rigged grand chessboard


After the fall of the Soviet Union, Argentine oil company Bridas, led by its ambitious chairman, Carlos Bulgheroni, became the first company to exploit the oil fields of Turkmenistan and propose a pipeline through neighboring Afghanistan. A powerful US-backed consortium intent on building its own pipeline through the same Afghan corridor would oppose Bridas' project....

snip

The Coveted Trans-Afghan Route

....Upon successfully negotiating leases to explore in Turkmenistan, Bridas was awarded exploration contracts for the Keimar block near the Caspian Sea, and the Yashlar block near the Afghanistan border. By March 1995, Bulgheroni had accords with Turkmenistan and Pakistan granting Bridas construction rights for a pipeline into Afghanistan, pending negotiations with the civil war-torn country.

The following year, after extensive meetings with warlords throughout Afghanistan, Bridas had a 30-year agreement with the Rabbani regime to build and operate an 875-mile gas pipeline across Afghanistan.

Bulgheroni believed that his pipeline would promote peace as well as material wealth in the region. He approached other companies, including Unocal and its then-CEO, Roger Beach, to join an international consortium.

But Unocal was not interested in a partnership. The United States government, its affiliated transnational oil and construction companies, and the ruling elite of the West had coveted the same oil and gas transit route for years.

A trans-Afghanistan pipeline was not simply a business matter, but a key component of a broader geo-strategic agenda: total military and economic control of Eurasia (the Middle East and former Soviet Central Asian republics). Zbigniew Brezezinski describes this region in his book "The Grand Chessboard-American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" as "the center of world power." Capturing the region's oil wealth, and carving out territory in order to build a network of transit routes, was a primary objective of US military interventions throughout the 1990s in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Caspian Sea.

As of 1992, 11 western oil companies controlled more than 50 percent of all oil investments in the Caspian Basin, including Unocal, Amoco, Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Pennzoil, Texaco, Phillips and British Petroleum.

snip

....In "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia" (a definitive work that is a primary source for this report), Ahmed Rashid wrote, "US oil companies who had spearheaded the first US forays into the region wanted a greater say in US policy making."

Business and policy planning groups active in Central Asia, such as the Foreign Oil Companies Group operated with the full support of the US State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA and the Department of Energy and Commerce.

Among the most active operatives for US efforts: Brezezinski (a consultant to Amoco, and architect of the Afghan-Soviet war of the 1970s), Henry Kissinger (advisor to Unocal), and Alexander Haig (a lobbyist for Turkmenistan), and Dick Cheney (Halliburton, US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce).

Unocal's Central Asia envoys consisted of former US defense and intelligence officials. Robert Oakley, the former US ambassador to Pakistan, was a "counter-terrorism" specialist for the Reagan administration who armed and trained the mujahadeen during the war against the Soviets in the 1980s. He was an Iran-Contra conspirator charged by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh as a key figure involved in arms shipments to Iran.

Richard Armitage, the current Deputy Defense Secretary, was another Iran-Contra player in Unocal's employ. A former Navy SEAL, covert operative in Laos, director with the Carlyle Group, Armitage is allegedly deeply linked to terrorist and criminal networks in the Middle East, and the new independent states of the former Soviet Union (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrghistan).

Armitage was no stranger to pipelines. As a member of the Burma/Myanmar Forum, a group that received major funding from Unocal, Armitage was implicated in a lawsuit filed by Burmese villagers who suffered human rights abuses during the construction of a Unocal pipeline. (Halliburton, under Dick Cheney, performed contract work on the same Burmese project.)....

snip

Bridas Versus the New World Order

....Much to Bridas' dismay, Unocal went directly to regional leaders with its own proposal. Unocal formed its own competing US-led, Washington-sponsored consortium that included Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil, aligned with Saudi Prince Abdullah and King Fahd. Other partners included Russia's Gazprom and Turkmenistan's state-owned Turkmenrozgas.

John Imle, president of Unocal (and member of the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce with Armitage, Cheney, Brezezinski and other ubiquitous figures), lobbied Turkmenistan's president Niyazov and prime minister Bhutto of Pakistan, offering a Unocal pipeline following the same route as Bridas...

snip

.......Although Unocal had agreements with the governments on either end of the proposed route, Bridas still had the contract with Afghanistan.

The problem was resolved via the CIA and Pakistani ISI-backed Taliban. Following a visit to Kandahar by US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphael in the fall of 1996, the Taliban entered Kabul and sent the Rabbani government packing.

Bridas' agreement with Rabbani would have to be renegotiated.

snip

Wooing the Taliban

According to Ahmed Rashid, "Unocal's real influence with the Taliban was that their project carried the possibility of US recognition, which the Taliban were desperately anxious to secure."

Unocal wasted no time greasing the palms of the Taliban. It offered humanitarian aid to Afghan warlords who would form a council to supervise the pipeline project. It provided a new mobile phone network between Kabul and Kandahar. Unocal also promised to help rebuild Kandahar, and donated $9,000 to the University of Nebraska's Center for Afghan Studies. The US State Department, through its aid organization USAID, contributed significant education funding for Taliban. In the spring of 1996, Unocal executives flew Uzbek leader General Abdul Rashid Dostum to Dallas to discuss pipeline passage through his northern (Northern Alliance-controlled) territories.

Bridas countered by forming an alliance with Ningarcho, a Saudi company closely aligned with Prince Turki el-Faisal, the Saudi intelligence chief. Turki was a mentor to Osama bin Laden, the ally of the Taliban who was publicly feuding with the Saudi royal family.....

snip

Osama bin Laden (who issued his fatwa against the West in 1998) advised the Taliban to sign with Bridas. In addition to offering the Taliban a higher bid, Bridas proposed an open pipeline accessible to warlords and local users. Unocal's pipeline was closed—for export purposes only. Bridas' plan also did not require outside financing, while Unocal's required a loan from the western financial institutions (the World Bank), which in turn would leave Afghanistan vulnerable to demands from western governments.

snip

Clearing the Chessboard Again

snip

Unocal withdrew from CentGas, and informed the State Department "the gas pipeline would not proceed until an internationally recognized government was in place in Afghanistan." Although Unocal continued on and off negotiations on the oil pipeline (a separate project), the lack of support from Washington hampered efforts.

Meanwhile, Bridas declared that it would not need to wait for resolution of political issues, and repeated its intention of moving forward with the Afghan gas pipeline project on its own. Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan tried to push Saudi Arabia to proceed with CentGas (Delta of Saudi Arabia was now the leader). But war and US-Taliban tension made business impossible.

For the remainder of the Clinton presidency, there would be no official US or UN recognition of Afghanistan. And no progress on the pipeline.

Then George Walker Bush took the White House.



RC

[951]

10. Remember 17 or the 19 hijackers were Afghani's...

I believe we did the right thing and I stand with George W. Bush for making the decision to invade!



BTW I'm kidding

[bluestateguy]

13. I did, but Bush f'd it up

The Taliban basically allowed Al Qaeda to run that country, making it possible for the terrorist network to have an international headquarters.

We didn't exactly start bombing on September 12th either. The Taliban was given the chance to close down the training camps, open them to UN inspection and hand over bin Laden.

But Bush ultimatley screwed it all up. All we really did was drive the Taliban out of the major urban centers and cede much of the rest of the country over to warlords. The Taliban reasserted control over pockets of the country, some of the training camps and other Al Qaeda strongholds were re-established. We went in with too few troops to secure the country. And then we all know about the fuck up at Tora Bora. There is now more opium coming out of that country than there was before. It's evident to me that building the oil pipeline was the Administration's top priority.

That's the last time I will ever support the Administration's military actions. They will never again have my trust.

[Fleshdancer]

15. I supported it because I was still in a lot of pain over 9/11

I do support going after OBL and I really can't feel sorry for the Taliban, but it doesn't seem like we're learning our lessons very well. Working with war lords on the failed theory that our enemy's enemy is our friend is insane. Isn't that how OBL was created in the first place?? I believe the old saying... if you don't learn from history then you're doomed to repeat it. Doesn't make the most optimistic future for the next generation.

[Jack_Dawson]

16. Fuck Yes!

We got attacked...people were jumping out of buildings as you may recall. OBL did it, and Afghanistan was harboring him. Shrub didn't have 90% approval ratings for nothing.

And then he fucked it up.

[Pastiche423]

17. No

Did we have the proof of who attacked us on September 11, 2001?

We had none on October 6, 2001. We still have none on October 4, 2004.

The plans to invade Afghanistan were on whistle ass' desk BEFORE September 11, 2001, btw.

[vajraroshana]

18. Only at first....

Then I read some things that didn't sit quite right with me.

One of my first cousins served there...he's now serving (last I heard) in Iraq. I pray for him and all our troops.

Of course they're Buddhist prayers so what do they matter?...(/sarcasm)

Prayer matters alot, I believe. I pray a lot...for everyone.

:hug:

[Michael Harrington]

19. Yes.

Actually, we should have done it, preferably at the head of a multi-national coalition, sometime around 1995.

That was the place we were wanted and our help would've been appreciated. Instead, we've squandered the opportunity, engulfed another nation in war, engendered hostility there and all around the Muslim world, blown our chance to kill bin Laden and to smash al Quaeda and essentially returned the country to it's post-Najibulah/pre-Taliban lawless period.

[sweetheart]

20. never, it is and was a waste of life, as tragic as 9/11

The wilful killing of thousands of human beings, is no honour, and
certianly a mature state should know better.

Were I president after 9/11, i would have gone on the television and
denounced the event as a terrible and horrible crime, and then,
with the global coalition, taken the terrorists to court. By this
2004, they'd all be in prison, and islamic radicalism would be on
the decline after being shown to be uncivil on global television by
osama's trial under the rule of law at the ICC.

As well, i would have forced pakistan to hold elections to oust its
stupid dictator, same with saudi arabia, and i would have used the
license-to-act granted by 9/11 to truly democratize the middle east
and to sort out the israel apartheid asswipes.

Afganistan accomplished nothing, just like when the british and other
armies took the place over centuries... same same.. stupid. I'm sure
khalilzad looks happy with his new ambassador job. What an ass to
sell a war so he can get a job.

I would open a special exchange program, underwritten by the USA in
all nations on earth. I would offer cash 1 dollar for every bullet,
100 dollars for every gun, 100 dollars for every grenade and morter
round... and literally buy up the world's small weapons stocks
replacing them with spending power in the hands of the poor.

It would be part of my "one earth, one people" campaign to end
suffering, disease, bad water, malaria, AIDS, and all the true
causes of human misery.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Nope.

And I'm still waiting to see that white paper proving bin Laden's guilt.

[davepc]

23. What would FDR do?

He would of kicked ass, taken names, and done the right thing, which is defend the safety and security of the United States of America.

Afghanistan was a safe haven for the enemies of the United States.

Americans sleep safer at night because the enemies of the United States no longer sleep safely there.

John Kerry will do what FDR and Truman did, kill every last mutherf'n one of them until the threat is gone.

Unlike ole' shrubby he'll get the forces of Western Democracy to come to our side, to fight a common enemy, instead of driving off allies and friends in misguided adventures in nation building.

John Kerry is strong on defense, John Kerry will kill terrorists, dead. John Kerry is the leader we need to make us safe and secure.

[LynnTheDem]

24. Think our "enemies" the Taleban could give us back that $40 million...

that bush gifted them with in August 2001 as a reward for their "war on drugs"? We could really use that money back.

Oh and how about that bush handpicked Afghan president Karzhai, wanting the Taleban back into government positions, because, he says, "only a handful are bad people".

Huh.

So we lost MORE US TROOPS' LIVES in Afghanistan than the number of "bad Taleban".

And now bush wants US troops to fight Afghanistan's drug wars. THAT oughta be interesting. If you hate our troops.

[davepc]

25. dunno

Go find the cave their hiding in trying not to get blown up by a 2000lb JDAM and ask them for it.

Frankly, I don't care about the people of Afghanistan, the Constitution of the United States doesn't mention them. The President doesn't have any duty to them, only to the citizens of the United States. Part of that duty is to keep them safe from attack.

No terrorists are training to attack and kill Americans in Afghanistan any more.

Our soldiers job is to bring the fight to the enemy, thats what they do. Some of them will die in that service, they know the risk when they sign up.

John Kerry knows this, he's been there and done that. He knows whats at stake if we let our enemies come to us, rather then us going to them. He knows it will take a unified international effort by the free peoples of this world to rise up and fight terror in the very place it festers and spreads.

Democrats care about the safety and security of this nation. They have the will and resolve to do what is necessary to protect it.

[LynnTheDem]

27. Oh REALLY?

"No terrorists are training to attack and kill Americans in Afghanistan any more."

The fact that the Talaban are back, the fact that al Qaeda is growing, as are many other terrorist groups, the fact that warlords have taken over whatever part of Iraq the Taleban haven't, the fact that every time we kill innocent men, women & children gives further reason for people to attack us in return, to you this all means "No terrorists are training to attack and kill Americans in Afghanistan any more."

And just how would we know this, seeing as how our troops can barely get out of Kabal without being blown to pieces?

I think you're a wee bit delusional, if I may say so.

By the way, dear uninformed person, the MAJORITY of US troops DO NOT sign up for combat MOSs and NEVER expected to be put into combat. There are units sent & being sent into combat who have NEVER in the entire history of the US military been sent into combat.

NO they most certainly DID NOT KNOW what they signed up for.

[Hello_Kitty]

26. I did because they said Osama was there

And the Taliban was harboring Al Queda. However, I still wondered why the hell we weren't going after Saudi Arabia.

[wuushew]

28. kick

:kick:

[Forkboy]

29. Not even close to supporting it

then or now.

[noonwitch]

30. Yes-something had to be done there. I didn't like the carpet bombing, but

I had no problem with bombing the hell out of the caves in Tora Bora, where al Queda was holed up. There were some stupid mistakes, like putting the food drops in containers that looked very similar to the bombs, but I liked the idea of the food drops. The Taliban had to go, I wish that the UN/NATO had intervened there a long time ago.

My main problem is that we went to war in Iraq, and diverted the troops from accomplishing some real goals in Afganistan. Now, they're back to opium production.

I am glad for the women of Afganistan that they can go to school again, leave their houses without wearing a burka, and vote in the upcoming elections.

[wuushew]

33. Can someone explain why growing opium is bad?

It is one of the few exports that brings hard currency into Afghanistan and even with the minuscule pay the actual farmers receive it still makes more economic sense than growing food staples.

I find it strange that Bush claims to want to spread American ideals abroad yet this aspect of profit seeking is verboten?

Regarding the war on drugs..either you believe that it is decided on the personal level or perhaps on a larger scale in a national anti-drug campaign. I have never understood why the DEA needed to export America's drug war to other countries.

[mmonk]

31. Yes

I still think it was the right move. Even if al Queda wasn't linked to 9/11, it was linked to the embassy bombings and the Cole. It would continue to try to attack us. Elimination of the Taleban eliminated some safe haven for them. We need to get tough with Pakistan. I know they believe they are fighting a defensive war against the US, but we must fight back when we're hit. The way to eliminate the problem is to change the overall focus of our foreign policy. It doesn't appear we will do that.

[DrWeird]

32. Yes. I also support bombing Michigan.

It's clear that the OKC bombers were involved with the Michigan Militia. And the government of Michigan has yet to turn over the Michigan Militia. Therefore the US government should began the whole-scale bombing of Michigan. Turn it into glass, I say.

Anybody who disagrees is a God damned terrorist sympathizer.

[The Magistrate]

34. Un-Reservedly, Mr. Free

That attack was not only proper, but a political necessity: any leader of this country, of whatever party and whatever political persuasion, would have carried it out. Those elements of the left which opposed it made a serious miscalculation, that to this day weakens the left in the eyes of the people of our country, though fortunately some subsequent events have greatly reduced the degree of damage done.

There are no reasonable grounds for supposing the attacks were not carried out by Al Queda under Bin laden's leadership, though there are a variety of straws some persons clutch at for whatever reason, and it is a fact that Afghanistan constituted the geographic base of that organization's infrastructure, and that the Taliban government was hand in glove with it. Any serious attempt to destroy Al Queda had to begin with an attack on that country, and the overthrow of its state ally.

That the attack was badly botched in its later stages is certainly true. The initial tactic of employing Northern Alliance forces in the field to break the conventional army of the Taliban was sound, but in the exploitation phase against the smaller Al Queda concentrations, operations should have been conducted exclusively by elite U.S. forces. A greater quantity of U.S. forces ought to have been employed, and the sovereign weapon of money used in stabilizing the situation after victory. The best way to dismantle the war lord forces is simply to outbid them for soldiers by offering much greater pay for enlistment with the government's army, and the best way to pacify the place is to soak up the surplus pool of young men with peaceful labor on reconstruction and roads at high wages. There were, and are, tremendous quantities of reconstruction work necessary in the place, the doing of which could have made it into a showpiece displaying the benefits of rejecting the extreme fundamentalist ideology.

It is as much a mistake for the left to conflate the operation against Al Queda with Iraq as it is for the criminals of the '00 Coup to do so. They are completely seperate matters. Iraq was a chronic difficulty, well contaned, and presented no immediate threat in its largely disarmed condition: nothing needed immediate doing in that quarter, and the sole reason it was done was that the criminals of the '00 Coup felt it would be of benefit to them politically. Al Queda chose to levy war against the United States, and that in a criminal fashion: the response to that must be war, and war to the knife, without quarter. As Al Queda is an extraordinarily reactionary and even imperialist group, aiming as it does for a restoration of the old Caliphite and a world under the dominion of it, there really ought to be no difficulty whatever in the way of leftists opposing it, and energeticly supporting its demolition.

"They have sown the wind, and shall reap the whirlwind."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[marlakay]

35. I supported finding Osama & gang and taking them out

not a country. I hate that regular citizens that like us don't agree with things going on in their country get killed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. As dispicable as the Taliban was..no.

Afghanistan was a sovereign nation however ugly it's government was. Al-queyda was (and is) funded and directed by Saudi's. It was an easy target in the eyes of the military and their bosses.

The invasion has accomplished little except dislodging the Taliban and replacing it with a government of warlords and drug dealers.